Working with Stdin and Stdout

Previously, I erroneously titled my column as "SIGALRM Timers and
Stdin Analysis". It turned out that by the time I'd finished writing
it, I had spent a lot of time talking about SIGALRM and how to set up
timers to avoid scripts that hang forever, but I never actually got to
the topic of stdin analysis. Oops.

So this time, let's start with that topic. The behavior to
emulate here is something a lot of utilities do without you paying much
attention: they behave differently if their input or output is a pipe or
file than they do when it's stdin (the keyboard) or stdout (the
screen). Try ls versus ls|cat to see what I mean.

The test command has a helpful flag in this regard:
-t. From the
man page:

True if the file whose file descriptor number is
file_descriptor is open and is associated with a terminal.

Worth knowing is that file descriptor #0 is stdin; #1 is stdout, and #2 is
stderr (pronounced "standard in", "standard out" and
"standard error", respectively). That's why using
>&
to redirect by file descriptors works with 2>&1 to cause error
messages to go to stdout just like regular output messages.

Back to the topic though—in practice, the -t test
can be used like this:

Let's back up a bit and have another look at file redirection before
leaving this topic, however.

I already talked about the common trick of 2>&1 to redirect stderr to
stdout—something that's very helpful on the command line. You also
can redirect specific lines of output in a shell script to stderr, so your error
messages are sent to the screen even if stdout is being sent to a pipe or
file:

echo Error: this is an error message >&2

But, what if you want to have your script force stdout to a specific target
regardless of what someone does on the command line? It can be done—of
course—although it involves a very different approach: the use of the
exec command.

At its most basic, the exec call is like a subshell invocation
(which is really what happens each time you invoke any system command like
ls or fmt), but it's the
existing shell that's
replaced with the specified command, effectively killing the current
process. If you have a shell script that sets up specific parameters for an
external call, for example, you could end it with:

exec $cmd $args

and anything you might have after that point in the original script is
jettisoned because the script is no longer running, it's replaced by
$command.

But exec actually is more nuanced than that, and in
particular, a
quirk of its behavior gives the solution we seek:
exec
replaces all the current assignments for stdin, stdout and stderr with
those specified as part of the invocation.

So here's the solution, redirecting stdout to a file:

exec > output.txt

In practice, you can see how it works with this snippet:

echo This is stdout
exec > output.txt
echo This is still stdout but goes elsewhere

Let's actually put a few different things together in this script, so
you can see how this all works together:

echo this goes to stdout
echo and this goes to stderr >&2
exec > output.txt
echo This is still stdout but goes elsewhere
echo but where does this go\? >&2
exec date
echo this script is kaput

Here's what happens when you run the program:

$ sh test.sh
this goes to stdout
and this goes to stderr
but where does this go?

But, what's actually in output.txt?

$ cat output.txt

This is still stdout, but it goes elsewhere:

Sun Oct 7 10:29:56 MDT 2012

Interesting. Notice that, as expected, "this script is kaput"
never shows up because once the exec invokes an external program
(in this case, date), the script itself is done, because its process
has been replaced with the date program.

Notice that the exec redirected only stdout, so that the error
message at the very end still goes to the screen. Want to have both stdout
and stderr redirected to the file? It's literally a one-character
change! Instead of the above exec redirect, use this:

exec &> output.txt

That's easy enough, isn't it?

Now, what about the opposite situation where the user has redirected stdout
to a file, but you still want it to go to the screen anyway? That's done
with yet another sequence on the exec invocation:
1>&2,
which redirects stdout to stderr.

Let's look at the same script as above, with exec
1>&2. Here's what
happens:

$ sh test2.sh > /dev/null
and this goes to stderr
This is still stdout but goes elsewhere
but where does this go?
Sun Oct 7 10:47:44 MDT 2012

Pretty cool, eh?

That's it for this month. As always, if you have any interesting
scripting projects, challenges or ideas, drop me a note via http://www.linuxjournal.com/contact, and I'll have
a look. Input always is welcome!

Also, if you have an extraordinary memory, you might recall that Mitch
Frazier wrote about similar topics in Linux Journal's
Upfront section, during 2010,
but his approach was considerably more complicated than mine. Sorry Mitch!

______________________

Dave Taylor has been hacking shell scripts for over thirty years. Really.
He's the author of the popular "Wicked Cool Shell Scripts" and
can be found on Twitter as @DaveTaylor and more generally at
www.DaveTaylorOnline.com.

Trending Topics

Upcoming Webinar

Getting Started with DevOps - Including New Data on IT Performance from Puppet Labs 2015 State of DevOps Report

August 27, 2015
12:00 PM CDT

DevOps represents a profound change from the way most IT departments have traditionally worked: from siloed teams and high-anxiety releases to everyone collaborating on uneventful and more frequent releases of higher-quality code. It doesn't matter how large or small an organization is, or even whether it's historically slow moving or risk averse — there are ways to adopt DevOps sanely, and get measurable results in just weeks.